Memes

45670 readers

2176 users here now

Rules:

Be civil and nice.
Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml

sexy_peach@feddit.de

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

360

DMCAtendo (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by RmDebArc_5@sh.itjust.works to c/memes@lemmy.ml

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://asmb.itch.io/dmcas-sky

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] uranibaba@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I don't follow. How would no IP give more money to the workers? How would no IP change how the company was run?

I'm not arguing IP here, I just seems to me that you are mixing two different things. You can have a employee owned company and still have IP.

Or am I missing something obvious?

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think their point is that if the people making the games were given fair compensation that they would be more willing to sacrifice IP rights.

I don't see what makes them think that other than their own personal feelings on the matter, but I think that's the message.

[–] unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago

That couldn't have been the point.

Companies use (read: abuse) IP to keep an artificial, government-sanctioned monopoly they use to extract money from users. Add to that skins, microtransactions, lootboxes, yearly releases and all the other vilest shit you can find in a modern videogame and you'll see it isn't about the studio staying afloat - it's abuit the publisher raking in the $$$.

People who are creatives take it as a point of pride when their work is spread, remade and remixed. What they do not like is if that remaking and remixing is done by a soulless company in the vilest and most soulless way to generate profits. Oh, and except for thise with the best deals, IP stays with the company.

It's not about cratives "not being paid enough" so they need IP protection - it's the very same companies whose IP is protected who don't pay their workers enough. IP doesn't bring money to workers directly nor does it protect workers from anything since again - the IPs are owned by the studio/publisher.

Call it "personal feelings", but it's how the world works.

[–] nephs@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

More people would be able to innovate on said "non IP". Multiple lines could be developed by multiple independent teams, extending the non ip however they see fit. By encouraging competition, the better content would thrive.

It lowers the barrier of entry, enforcing competition and lowering distribution cost. And without the ludicrous profit margins and legal overhead from big conglomerates, it would be cheaper for the consumers, and more of the fees could be distributed to the actual people working on the creation.

This is prettyranty, sorry if it's not too clearly articulated.